Category Archives: Conservatism

UPDATED: CPUKE 2014 Is Upon Us

Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Republicans, Sarah Palin

At least the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPUKE) is a little lighter on the bimbo factor, this year, but heavier with the weight of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. (CPUKE usually showcases retards like S. E. Cupp and assorted Townhall.com twits.)

The megalomaniacal Donald Trump, however, is pretty scary. “The business mogul is motivated by the sense that the nimbus of great power that surrounds the US is dissipating. It hasn’t occurred to him to search closer to home for the causes of America’s economic anemia—at Fanny, Freddie, and the Fed, for a start. Since Trump has no idea what’s potting, and is not eager to look in his own plate — he blames OPEC and China for the burdens of doing business in the US.” (From “Sinophobia Trumps Common Sense”)

The Trump plan to reclaim global greatness and glory includes a strategy America has yet to try: the use of force, of course. Strutting around on the world stage, showing those Russians, Saudis and Chinese who is boss: this may serve as a perfect panacea for the deficiencies in Trump’s persona, but is hardly a solution to US woes, at home or abroad.

Sadly, most other Republicans will echo these themes. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) promise to be the only impressive individuals in the scheduled lineup.

And Sarah Palin, once a real beauty, may have tampered with her face.

That’s about all from CPUKE.

UPDATE: Ted Cruz tells CPAC: ‘Stand on principle’:

“There are a lot of D.C. consultants who say there’s a choice for Republicans to make: We can either choose to keep our head down, to not rock the boat, to not stand for anything, or we can stand for principle,” he said. “They say if you stand for principle you lose elections. The way to do it — the smart way, the Washington way — is don’t stand against Obamacare, don’t stand against the debt ceiling, don’t stand against nothing. I want to tell you something — that is a false dichotomy. … ”

… Those principles, he said, include defending the Constitution, abolishing the IRS, expanding school choice, establishing term limits and combating “lawlessness” and corruption in the government.

The crowd for Cruz’s speech, which came first in the conference, was fairly small at first as attendees waited in line to get in. But it grew throughout the speech — and the biggest applause for Cruz came when he said the GOP needs to “repeal every word of Obamacare.”

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Analyze This: On ‘The Factor,’ Psychologizing Passes As Analysis

Conservatism, Democrats, English, Foreign Policy, Reason, Republicans, Russia

Bill O’Reilly, star of Fox New, has this Pavlovian response to any suggested comparison between Russian and American military bellicosity: he foams at the mouth. Why is it absolutely verboten, on The Factor, to compare Russia’s “excursion” into Ukraine to America’s naturally illicit and illegal occupations of Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, on and on?

You’re in for a treat. In defense of their reflexive rejection of the reasonable, if inaccurate, comparison—for decades the US has been far more aggressive than Russia in its foreign policy—don’t expect argument from Bill, Juan Williams and the gang. What you get is a form of ad hominem, or psychologizing.

President Vladimir Putin, said (today, Monday, March 3) Bill, is a thug. That’s why he can’t be compared to “a good country” like the US. (Childish doesn’t begin to cover this stuff.) Apparently Bush and Obama are never to be called thugs.

Why, Billy? Because they’re American?

The other “argument” for the lack of validity of said comparison was that Putin seeks the recrudescence of the Russian empire (my usage; Bill and the gang did not use that word. Read about Bill’s valiant but botched attempts to promote English). Bill has read Putin’s mind, and knows he wants Russia to be an empire again. Hence we cannot compare the actions on the ground of the two countries.

If ever you doubted that liberals and conservatives are situated on the same foreign-policy continuum, listen to the prescriptions for Ukraine of leftist Juan Williams. On the same silly segment, the Fox News “analyst” recommended that the US freeze the assets of individual Russians, stateside and abroad, expel visiting Russians and stop Russians from traveling to the US, all in retaliation for the presence of Russian forces in Crimea (which is dominated by a Russian-speaking population). Williams, naturally, also wants to see economic sanctions placed on Russia.

Williams is an “analyst” in the same way Bill O’Reilly is a thinker.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Conservative Argument From Feelings Against Fem Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action, Ann Coulter, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Reason

Presumably pursuant to the posts “Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal” and “With Some Exceptions, ‘Women Are Fascists At Heart,’” Ben Cohen of “American Thinker” has been kind enough to send me his piece, “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger.”

Thanks.

My problem, however, with “The Legitimacy of White Male Anger” is its non-stop apologetics, which come close to accepting the premise of “gender parity through affirmative action,” provided women are a little more gracious about all the concessions they are getting.

“Those demanding that more women be hired in various academic fields” are “sanctimonious and callous,” “blatantly self-serving”; not nice, demanding.

This amounts to psychologizing, not arguing.

Moreover, why is it “bad” for men to have given an “unfriendly reception” to women who’ve been forcibly integrated into the traditionally male trades?

If they don’t deserve to be on the job, on merit, why does friendliness matter; why is it the focus here? And why have men taken to arguing like women? (“You hurt my feelings. Be nice.” Or, “do feminists ever stop and consider the men’s perspective?”)

It’s disconcerting.

As an individualist, I am all for recruiting your lesbian, Amazonian lady to the traditionally male occupations. She is a rare creature who can match men in physicality. Seek her. Keep her. In an increasingly feminized, soft society, warrior women need the military, for example, as an outlet for their abilities. Let these women join the police, military or the fire brigade. An exception, not the rule, however, is the woman who can match a man in strength, speed, physical endurance and handiness.

So why on earth is male “unfriendliness” toward women who force them to do double duty on the job relevant? Even the woman-glorifying, TV cop series we all watch can’t help but display men outrunning their partners, catching up to the criminal, pummeling the thug, and saving the more feeble female cop’s life.

A male cop who serves along a 100 pound woman with silicone for breasts is risking his life. Receiving her with hostility into the force is hardly the issue here. Neither is it wrong.

I hardly think an “unfriendly” reception is the crux of the matter in the grander program of engineered gender parity.

Read “Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!” by Ann Coulter, where she gets straight to the matter:

How many people have to die before the country stops humoring feminists? … The inestimable economist John Lott has looked at the actual data. (And I’ll give you the citation! John R. Lott Jr., “Does a Helping Hand Put Others at Risk? Affirmative Action, Police Departments and Crime,” Economic Inquiry, April 1, 2000.)

It turns out that, far from “de-escalating force” through their superior listening skills, female law enforcement officers vastly are more likely to shoot civilians than their male counterparts. (Especially when perps won’t reveal where they bought a particularly darling pair of shoes.)

Unable to use intermediate force, like a bop on the nose, female officers quickly go to fatal force. According to Lott’s analysis, each 1 percent increase in the number of white female officers in a police force increases the number of shootings of civilians by 2.7 percent. …

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Conservatives and Lefties United Against The Beauty Ideal

Aesthetics, Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Left-Liberalism, Propaganda

Radio mouth Laura Ingraham ventured into the “Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest,” i.e., “The O’Reilly Factor,” to promote leftist feminist thought: Laura whined that Sports Illustrated promotes a certain body image in women.

No, moron. The magazine is responding to a certain consensus about beauty, extant across most civilized societies. Like high intelligence, such perfection is uncommon. We can’t all possess the assets these thoroughbred beauties possess.

But like lefties, conservatives do not acknowledge that people are not created equal. (Come to think of it, lite libertarians are pursuing the same “thought,” but about that another time.)

The most Laura can do is take comfort in the fact that these gorgeous girls are, mostly, as dumb as bricks and will age, but there is nothing she can do to demote their coveted advantage and promote the “self-image” of her presumably uncomely kids. Nobody wants to see Gabourey Sidibe, “the mountain of human flesh that stars in the film ‘Precious,'” on the coveted cover of Sports Illustrated.

UPDATE (2/22): My comments from Facebook thread:

Someone said that beauty is like art. I agree. We are drawn to looking at lovely things. Less evolved sorts prefer what I call the porn aesthetic (see column for examples). However, I can tell you that I saw some of these beauties on Charlie Rose last night. They only have to open their mouths to spout stupid, banal, political platitudes, and wave their hands affectaciously—and I cringe. I looked on a bit, out of appreciation, then I “fled” the channel.

Btw, yammering about “diversity” is of a piece with being brain washed. We don’t have to “care” about diversity. Pursuing/practicing these political concepts is a hallmark of a propagandized people.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Quiet Rebellion In Connecticut

Conservatism, GUNS, Individual Rights

The state of Connecticut has created felons at the stroke of a pen. As a consequence, a quiet rebellion is brewing there.

It would appear that “tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called ‘assault rifles,’ they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.”

Via The Blaze:

… officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. “No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000,” the report states.

Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned. …

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights’ (Constitution’s About Process)

Conservatism, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Gender, Homosexuality, Law, The Courts

“Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

The ban on the ban is unconstitutional.

This was the gist of broadcaster Mark Levin’s angry tirade against the humdrum, and certainly predicable, decision of a federal judge to strike down “Oklahoma’s voter-approved ban” on gay marriage.

At the center of conservative contretemps are similar decisions in California, New Mexico and Utah, following on which U.S. District Judge Terence Kern had “determined that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment” violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It stipulates that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Broadly speaking, WND’s Alan Keyes concurred with Levin, alluding to the Constitution’s 10th and Ninth Amendments by which “the judges and justices of the federal judiciary are forbidden to … deny the antecedent rights retained by the people.”

Indeed, “the prevailing view in 1791,” observed The Honorable Robert T. Donnelly, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Missouri, “was that the national government had only delegated powers and that reserved to the people was an undefined sphere of non-government within which people may not be interfered with by government.”

But that was then.

In voiding “voter-approved law,” Justice Kern has resorted to perfectly proper 14th Amendment judicial activism. Deploying the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, Kern nullified the 10th. It specifies that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

As expressed in the once-impregnable 10th Amendment, the Constitution’s federal scheme has long since been obliterated by the 14th Amendment and the attendant Incorporation Doctrine.

What does this mean?

If the Bill of Rights was intended to place strict limits on federal power and protect individual and locality from the national government—the 14th Amendment effectively defeated that purpose by placing the power to enforce the Bill of Rights in federal hands, where it was never intended to be. …

… Either way, the freedoms afforded by federalism are no longer because American federalism is no longer. …

… Conservatives as astute as Mr. Levin, Esq., ought to quit misleading their readers and listeners about the restoration of a constitutional structure that has suffered death by a thousand cuts, long before the dreadful cur Obama appeared on the scene. …

Read the complete column. “Conned About Marriage, Constitution And ‘States’ Rights'” is now on WND.

JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact ilana@ilanamercer.com.

UPDATED I (1/24): American constitutional federalism is about process, rather than what law you like or don’t. The process is clear. The Courts were never meant to tell people how to run their homes and communities. It’s a column I’ve been wanting to write for a while. It’s quite disturbing how little people understand about a structure/scheme that is no longer and that was intended to protect liberty. The 14th is a real problem, as it killed the 10th.

UPDATE II: Facebook thread:

Todd Frank: The post-civil war Republicans did not think several things through when they drafted the 14th amendment. That said, there still has to be some sort of remedy when states themselves trample on the rights of the individual short of giving the US government carte-blanche to do whatever they want to us.

Ilana Mercer : Todd Frank, you make a good point. But just about every state had itself a constitution with a bill of rights.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint